cc @grahamc @nlewo

Can you add a test to the examples list which forces the last layer to have many, and runs a program which would appear in the "bulk" layer? This way we can test it more easily next time.

@grahamc Great idea! Done.

@purefn Thanks for you quick fix!
The test is not working as expected.
It will be easier to write it when #78834 is merged since we could build an image with 2 layers.

If we want to quickly fix this issue, we could only merge the fix (without the test) and I could work on a test tomorrow, once #78834 is merged.

If we want to avoid that bug, why not package bashInteractive instead of bash in the image and increase maxLayers? bashInteractive has readline in its closure so there will be a few extra layers to work with in the test case.

@nlewo

The test is not working as expected.

How is it not working as expected? It builds an image with 3 layers: the first is the layer with glibc, the second layer has both bash and hello, the third layer is the "customization" layer.

That's exactly what I expected it to produce when I wrote the test. Were your expectations different?

@purefn Sorry, I should have provided more explanations ;)

In the image you are building, the second layer contains both bash and hello store paths, and hello is the first store path in the list. So, it is added to the layer and the image command would works (while bash is not in the layer since it is the second element of the store path).

To easily write a test, I think we should write a test loading an image containing only 2 layers: the "bulk" and customization layers. In the bulk layer, we could add several store paths and ensure all of them are in the image. This test is more complicated to write with several layers because it hard to know the destination layer of store paths.
However, when I tried to build a 2 layers images, i got an issue which I'm fixing in #78834...

@purefn I was thinking on a test such as in nlewo@bad4290

I'm not opposed to your test, I think it's fine. I'm just curious, wouldn't we get effectively the same result if we changed the docker image command to something along the lines of ls ${hello} ${bash}?

Yes, you are right, ls ${hello} ${bash} could do the job.

Actually, I was initially thinking on just creating these two files (because they don't have any dependencies)... but coreutils is actually needed to test their existence :/

@purefn It would be nice to merge your fix ;)
Could you write a regression test as you suggested (ls ${hello} ${bash}), or remove the example from this PR (in that case I could write the test)?

I finally merged your fix commit in #80102 (where I added a regression test).
Thanks @purefn!

Oh, sorry! I've been swamped with work and life the past few weeks.